Hey, Everybody.
Sorry for the late post. I'm posting a blog version of my presentation from Wednesday.
Observer or Involved?
My
topic basically asks the question of if and when journalists should get
involved in the situation they cover or stay on the sidelines.
There's
been a lot of debate on this topic over the years, but there is no
indication of which side of the argument is right; at least not a
clear-cut one.
Regardless, most journalists hold that
when reporting on a subject, they should stay out of the story and
remain objective observers, and report the world as they see it and not
as they live in it.
CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper reported on Hurricane Katrina, and in his memoir Dispatches from the Edge,
detailed his experiences with the incident, expressing his thoughts as a
bystander in that situation, but making no mention of his intervention
in the event. As the book is, it stresses the merits of leaving a
situation untampered.
People
argue for either standing up or standing by. Those who argue for
remaining objective are of the position that intervening in a chain of
events would prevent you from showing the world as it is; that
intervention causes changes in situations and can cause damage to the
story's credibility or impact. However, others argue that if a situation
goes too far, intervening is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as
journalists are no less a part of the public than a trash collector or a
mailman, and their status should not prevent them from doing what is
morally right. It is not acceptable to those people that journalists
refuse to intervene in dire situations simply because "it's not their
job."
Hurricane Katrina was a very dark time, and
considered to be a time when intervention was perfectly acceptable.
While many didn't, quite a few reporters who had been assigned to the
catastrophe gave people food and water, helped them get to shelter and
let them use their cell phones to get in touch with worried relatives.
This was good because their intervention didn't make the catastrophe
that was Hurricane Katrina disappear, and their help caused a lot of
people to trust reporters more and see them as someone other than people
with pencils and notepads.
On the other hand, a
situation where intervention had a status of questionable acceptability
was the situation covered by a story released by the Los Angeles Times
called Orphans of Addiction, which detailed the harsh conditions lived
in by children who came from families with a history of substance abuse.
The reporter for the story had interviewed children from a particular
neighborhood and detailed the deplorable living environments, ranging
from unsanitary to abusive. When she was done with her interview with a
girl, the girl had asked the reporter "Are you taking me with you?" The
reporter didn't take the girl with her, but a few months after the story
was published, it inspired the police to take action. Kids in the
neighborhood were put into child services and their parents jailed. This
story got a lot of bad attention. A lot of people wondered how the
reporter could just stand by and let these things happen to the
children. However, she and her superior held that if they had
intervened,, it would have diminished the impact it had. However, the
reporter did intervene once, to keep a baby from biting down on an
electrical cord.
In the end, when and if a journalist
should intervene with a situation is not an easy choice, and is an
argument that most likely won't go away any time soon. However, based on
all of this, the choice seems to be one that needs to be decided for
oneself, after having considered the possible outcomes of their choices.
One Washington Post reporter Anne Hull reported on Hurricane Katrina
and had offered aid, but clearly established boundaries. She gave people
food and water and let them use her cell phone, but refused to let a
family of two hitch a ride with her out of town. She said that when you
are done with reporting, if you can offer any help in a situation, by
all means do it. In the end, the answer seems to be, "you can't be a
robot, but you can't be afraid to get your hands dirty."
Like we talked about in class, I feel if by taking a photo or writing a story you're doing more harm than good then you should intervene. But if you're work will expose something that desperately needs to be changed then I say wait until you've finished the story to intervene.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that you need to be able to live with yourself when all's said and done but also respect the promises you make to your sources.
Talk about a fine line.
I think you're exactly right. Just as Anne Hull said, if you've done your job and you can help, by all means help.
DeleteI think one thing that we need to remember is that we are all gears in a much larger machine. This may be the military talking, but if we go somewhere to do a job, that is our specialty and that is the job we were sent to do and agreed to do. As a journalist on assignment, we are most powerful documenting what is going on. Aide workers and first responders are trained to help people, and by intervening without proper training in those areas we may just be getting in the way or making things worse. I can't imagine any of these situations will be easy as a journalist, but it is our job.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point. It reminds me of something my mother told me the other day. She said that in such a situation as a building burning down, you rushing in to help would likely only make things worse, and so your best option is to observe and report.
DeleteI suppose my opinion might change once I get out in the field. But I think that the perfect journalist and the perfect human might not be able to coexist together. Do I tell the story from my ivory tower? Or do I step in a do the right thing? We all have to decide when to stop being the journalist, and when to be a real person in the world.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that you can't separate the job from the person. I don't think being a journalist should stop you from doing the right thing in the right situation.
DeleteI think, as a journalist, it's important to be more of an observer overall. Especially when you can get the full story and create a bigger impact with that story and help more people that way. But you do have to live with yourself, so if you have the chance to help someone, like the drowning person Denise mentioned, I think you should help.
ReplyDeleteI have said time and time again I'd have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that someone died because I refused to do more than my job demanded.
DeleteI think there are situations where journalists don't have to think about it and know when to react and how. All we can do is speculate. Holly had no hesitation when she said she would put down her camera and help. I guess she has been through enough situations in the field that survival trumps a photo. I'd hope that one day if we are ever faced with a situation where we need to make a decision that we are able to make it without hesitation. Whether that means taking the photo, getting the quote or simply helping.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. There should be extrenuating circumstances when it comes to remaining on the sidelines.
Delete